Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real domain context: it discloses the ABS source, that only the latest quarter is returned, and that mean and median values are not comparable. That comparability caveat is valuable information not present in structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the country and dataset. The only slightly cryptic line is 'The price_type field says which', which references a return field absent from the schema, but it still earns its place by disambiguating the two measures.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-optional-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies nearly everything an agent needs: source, recency, area semantics, and the mean/median distinction. Minor omissions (currency/units explicitly stated, historical breadth) are low-impact.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining that the meaning of the result changes with the area type (state/territory yields MEAN, capital city or 'rest of state' yields MEDIAN). That semantics-of-input mapping is genuinely useful beyond the schema's bare examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (ABS Total Value of Dwellings, latest quarter) tied to a specific country, and immediately differentiates itself from the house_prices_in / house_prices_uk / home_prices_us siblings via the AUSTRALIA scoping. An agent can identify exactly what dataset this returns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'AUSTRALIA.' prefix implicitly routes the agent to the correct country tool, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given. Usage is implied by geography rather than stated explicitly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.